IT is rather shocking, if not too surprising, to see the attempts by distinguished Scottish "Establishment" figures to reverse the UK's Brexit referendum vote (“Fresh call to halt Brexit”, The Herald, July 18, and Letters, July 18).

They do not seem to accept or recognise Brexit's advantages for our nation, including the regaining of control of our laws, borders and money, in response to our people's democratic choice.

This newish political reaction – attempts to overturn a democratic, national vote – was started in recent times by the EU's responses to the "wrong" reactions in referendums in Ireland, France, Greenland and the Netherlands and, of course, since continued by the SNP in Scotland.

Many see the EU essentially as having become a costly, corrupt, wasteful, anti-democratic protection racket and gravy train, despite the noble objectives at its inception.

But the main point of the letter in question must be: what price British democracy?

(Dr) Charles Wardrop,

111 Viewlands Rd West, Perth.

THE great and the good signatories to the letter calling for a halt to Brexit are no doubt sincere in their opinions, but until the Brexit negotiations are complete and we know the terms and conditions of leaving the EU that is all they are, just their opinions.

I also have opinions, the first is that their proposal to have a national debate leading to calling a halt to Brexit would be breathtakingly anti-democratic. As such a debate raged on and on, it would disrupt and weaken our Brexit negotiators in their attempts to negotiate the best possible terms of our departure from the EU.

Should it ever happen, when would it end and how do they propose its outcome would be decided? Given the relatively short timescale for completing the Brexit negotiations and irrespective of the outcome of the debate, obviously it would be fatal to the possibility of any timely conclusion of these negotiations, which in my second opinion is the real object behind this proposed intervention.

As the signatories say, in a democracy it is always possible to think again and to change direction, but what they omit to say is that that can only be achieved democratically through the ballot box. Consequently, it is my third opinion that, inadvertently or not, their proposal seeks to subvert democracy and should be resisted.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View, Dunlop.

IT was with increasing anger and disappointment that I read your lead article. The main thrust of the piece is that intellectuals and politicians know better than the rest of us. Three of the politicians are from parties who lost the argument in the referendum while a fourth served in the EU Parliament and is unlikely to be unbiased.

What next? Do we go back to the middle ages when only the landed gentry got a vote while the rest of us dutifully tugged our forelocks and did what we were told?. Do we expand on Nick Clegg's argument that as well as the young's vote counting for more than the rest of the population this is expanded to include intellectuals and senior politicians?

Who defines an intellectual? Can we all become one by logging on to www.becomeanintellectual.com and completing the online application form? This has as much merit as Nick Clegg's suggestion.

We do none of the above. We as well as the intellectuals and politicians accept that democracy occasionally throws up results we do not like but learn to live with. At the end of the day we all get one vote and each vote counts the same no matter who you are. Long may this continue.

J S Morrison,

1 Arran Drive, Kirkintilloch.

IF there is one thing guaranteed to raise my blood pressure it is some buffoon saying that Brexit is the “will of the people” and that the country “voted for it”. It would be far more accurate to say that half the country voted to leave and half voted to remain. As I have argued before in these pages, major constitutional change should only be agreed when a substantial majority (60 per cent or more) express a desire for such change. Only then can it be argued that the alteration represents the settled will of the people.

I was recently in discussion with two relatives, both strong supporters of Scottish independence, and was surprised, but nonetheless delighted, to hear one of them say that he would have been unhappy with a small majority in the 2014 vote, as he felt that that could have been divisive and would have made the job of governing for a newly elected Scottish Government so much more difficult. Like me he felt that for a major constitutional change to be supported the majority should be emphatic.

The current Brexit situation is analogous to a busload of passengers, marked Great Britain, travelling en route to a destination named Future. The road they are on is not perfect, but they have been on it for some time now and they share it with another 27 buses, with whom they cordially interact, both socially and commercially. However, a few miles back it came to a fork in the road and, although our friends in the other buses continued on the main road, a few of our passengers had persuaded, by the narrowest of margins, to convince bus Great Britain to try an alternative route. We have started down this route but keep meeting signs which carry many dire warnings. There is a feeling in the bus that we just might have taken a wrong turning and a number of passengers, many who previously voted for this route, would now like to turn back and join our erstwhile companions. However, there are some loud voices on the bus who insist, no matter what, that we abide by our democratically at arrived decision.

Up ahead lies an ever narrowing road along the cliffside with a very deep drop on one side. Must we press on or is there still time to turn the bus around and rejoin our neighbours?

Jim Meikle,

41 Lampson Road, Killearn.

MIGHT the Great Repeal Bill be retitled the Cunning Plan Repeal Bill?

Bill Ramsay,

84 Albert Avenue, Glasgow.